The Jerusalem Talmud Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 3.1

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

MISHNAH: If somebody transports figs through his courtyard to cut them into pieces, his children and companions may eat and they are free; the same holds for laborers who work for him as long as they cannot claim their meals from him. But those who can claim their meals from him may not eat. If somebody takes his workers out to the field, if they have no claim to meals from him, they eat and are free. But if they can claim meals from him they may eat single fruits from the fig tree but not from the basket or the box or the muqẓeh. If somebody hires a laborer to work with him on olive trees and said to him “on condition to be able to eat olives,” he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. To thin out onions, if he said to him “on condition to be able to eat vegetables” he snips off leaf by leaf and eats but if he takes them together he is obligated.

2

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

HALAKHAH: May he himself eat? Rav said, he is forbidden to eat; Ulla ben Rebbi Ismael said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, this one is permitted to eat. Rav follows Rebbi Meїr, Rebbi Eleazar the rabbis. Does Rav follow Rebbi Meїr? Then even his children and domestics should be forbidden! But Rav follows Rebbi, Rebbi Eleazar the rabbis. As Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Shaul in the name of Rebbi: The Sages say, one eats from what is going to the muqẓeh only in its place. Rebbi Jacob ben Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: one eats from what is going to the muqẓeh in its place and in other places. Rebbi Yose ben Shaul objected to Rebbi: Did we not state, “carob pods until he collected them on top of his roof?” He said to him, do not object to me about carobs; carobs are animal feed.

3

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

According to Rav, what is the difference between himself and his children? He is forbidden because he depends on muqẓeh. His children who do not depend on muqẓeh are permitted. We understand his children, but his wife? Does she not have a claim for food against him? Following him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah. Following what we have stated: “The court will not determine food for a wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s.” Can she not be considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah? It implies that she is not considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah. Even according to him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah, does she not have a claim to a dwelling? Following what we stated: “If men participate with food without the knowledge of their wives, the participation is valid. But if wives participate without the knowledge of their husbands, the participation is invalid”.

4

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

It was stated: All that was brought from the field to town became ṭevel. The baraita is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “ If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them in his unprotected courtyard, then forgot and brought them into his house or the children brought them, he may bring them back to their intended place and eat.” They said that only concerning error; therefore, if intentional it is forbidden. Who stated this? Rebbi! As it was stated: “ If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them on his roof, Rebbi obligates, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah frees.” It is as it was stated, “if somebody transports figs through his courtyard to cut them into pieces;” therefore, if it is not to cut into pieces he is obligated.

5

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

Rebbi Ulla ben Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah brought the harvesting basket over the back of the roofs. Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Ilaї saw them and said, look what the difference is between you and the earlier generations. Rebbi Aqiba bought three different kinds for a peruṭah in order to tithe every kind separately but you bring the harvesting basket over the back of the roofs! Why over the back of the roofs, even if he brings them into his courtyard with the intention to eat them on the roof! Is that not the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah? Because of Rebbi who was with him. An old man saw them and said to them, would you give me some of these? They said, yes. He said to them, you did not give to your father in Heaven, only to me!

6

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow Rebbi? Even if he would hold with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, the Sabbath is more powerful since windfall which falls by itself is forbidden. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah? Even if he would follow Rebbi, since a secure courtyard is more powerful as Rebbi Joḥanan said, buying, courtyard, and Sabbath are not biblical. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish], the most reasonable of these is the secure courtyard.

7

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: If someone had two courtyards, one in Magdala and one in Tiberias, and transported it to the one in Magdala intending to eat them in Tiberias; since he transported it in a permitted way it is permitted. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai holds with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah but is stronger than the latter since Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah speaks about an exempt place but Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai about a place of obligation, but since he transported it in a permitted way it is permitted. Rebbi Eliezer’s statement is stronger than either of them, since Rebbi Eliezer said, since he started in a permitted way it is permitted.

8

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

We understand “not from the basket or the box”, but “or the muqẓeh?” Not “ he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated”? Rebbi Isaac said, they considered muqẓeh as being taken together.

9

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

The house of Rebbi stated: He eats normally and is free. Rebbi Jonah asked, where do we hold? If he hired him to work with him on the olives, everybody agrees that he eats normally and is free. If he hired him to work the olive trees, everybody agrees that he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. But we must hold that he hired him to thin out the olives. Since the latter part is about thinning out onions, if he said to him “on condition to be able to eat vegetables” he tears them out leaf by leaf and eats but if he takes them together he is obligated.

10

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked the colleagues: What is the reason we stated here that “he is free”? They said to him, because he is eating a snack in the field and is free. He said to them, is our Mishnah needed for that, because he is eating a snack in the field and is free? It must be because of abandoned property since if he brings it to his house he still is free. As it is stated: “If somebody found a harvesting basket covered with leaves, that is forbidden because of robbery and is subject to tithes.” It is forbidden because of robbery since it is something with distinguishing marks. It is subject to tithes since the owners still have it in mind. How far, that he could give heave from abandoned property? He cannot give heave from abandoned property! “He turns it into money’s worth and eats.”

11

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

Rebbi Jonah asked: Does the fixing of the price create ṭevel in a sale? Or maybe, since the owners can take it back there is no ṭevel? Rebbi Mana asked: Think of it if one was put in his mouth! Is it not unappetizing? Can he give it back? If you say so, is he not eating ṭevel retroactively? That means, the fixing of the price is like a sale.

12

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

‘If he found a harvesting basket in a place where most people bring to market, it is forbidden to eat a snack from them and he must put it in order as demay. In a place where most people bring to their houses, it is permitted to eat a snack from them and he must put it in order as certain. Half and half, he puts in order as demay but if he brings it to his house he must put it in order as certain.’ Rebbi Jonah asked, does demay create ṭevel for certain? If you would say so, does he not invert the order? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, he must spell out a condition and say: “If this is from those who bring to market, what I did is valid, otherwise, I did not do anything,” so that heave of the tithe should not contain ṭevel of the Great Heave. ‘Half and half on the field he puts in order as demay but if he brings it to his house he must put it in order as certain.’ Should one not be afraid that it was from those who bring to their houses and its Great Heave would contain ṭevel of heave of the tithe? Rebbi Mattaniah said, if he gives a name to his tithes.

13

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

So far something that has no threshing floor; but of produce from the threshing floor one separates heave of the tithe but does not need to give Great Heave as it was stated: “ If he found cleaned grain on the field, in a heap it is forbidden because of robbery, dispersed it is permitted because of robbery. In any case it is subject to tithes but free from Great Heave because no threshing floor is cleared unless Great Heave was taken.”

14

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

From where are tithes taken, from the house or from the field? Let us hear from the following: If a fellow died and in his estate was a chest full of grain, even if he filled it the same day it is supposed to be in order. Is it impossible that he should not have been of clouded mind at least for an hour? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he died with a clear mind. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood it from the following: “One tenth which I shall separate in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should distribute it to the poor.” That means, from the house. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba understood it from the following: “If somebody’s produce was in a storage bin and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person;” that means, from the house. Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from the following: “(Deut. 26:13) ‘From the house’, that is ḥallah.” That means, from the field.

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 3.1

Find your chapter.

Make yourself comfortable.

Choose your edition.